Monday letters to the editor

April 9, 2012

Reverse roles in Martin case

What if Trayvon had possessed a gun that night? Having been pursued by Mr. Zimmerman, would he not have had the right to "Stand His Ground" and shoot Zimmerman, who was following him for absolutely no reason? I wonder if they would have given Trayvon a substance test if he pulled the trigger?

I also wonder how the Sanford police would have handled the investigation if the roles were reversed. What would have happened if an older black male, the age of Zimmerman, took it upon himself to pursue a young white male age 17 just because he was wearing a hoodie?

Douglas Kennedy, Hollywood

Need society where race does not matter

In reference to the Trayvon Martin case:

I do not know all the facts in this case because I was not there with Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman, but I do know one thing: Trayvon should still be here with his family and friends. No matter what Zimmerman's defense is, he was wrong to pursue this young boy and to kill him. Because the other thing I do know is that if that had been me, a five-foot white young adult in Trayvon's hoodie, Zimmerman would have never thought I was suspicious or a threat.

As a result of this tragic event, I think this nation needs to sit down and have a serious talk about racial discrimination. But not just the racial discrimination against the African-Americans in the country. The racial discrimination against white Americans needs to be addressed as well.

The United States needs to get over this race cancer that we have inside of all of us. This country is over 200 years old, we are in 2012. We, as a nation, should already be past this. We need to be a leader in the world and show everyone it doesn't matter what someone looks like, what matters is the content of his character.

Estelle DeShocka, Loxahatchee

Stand Your Ground good law

I can see by your Today's Buzz poll that at least 70 percent do not want the Stand Your Ground Law repealed. It's a good law and yes, it gets abused like anything else. Changing it would do more harm than good. And to the 30 percent who want it repealed, go back to whatever liberal state you came from — including Gary Stein.

James Hayden, Oakland Park

What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

On April 1, you printed an article on page 8B, "Old photos are focus of Sanford shooting." This is an excellent article and shows a point of view that most of us never thought of. This article should not have been on Page 8B, but, rather, it would have done so much more good if it had been on the front page.

I am so tired of hearing, on every newscast, the one-sided story of the shooting in Sanford. My heart goes out to any family that experiences the loss of a son so young, but whatever happened to the "innocent until proven guilty" theory that we cherish? People have been so ready to judge and in so many cases where all the facts are not yet known.

Let's get the facts before we judge!

Marie Leonhard, Davie

Laws should be enforced by officials, not protests

Recent controversy over the shooting in Sanford has raised issues to be considered by our legislators. It seems to me that firearm use resulting in injury or fatality has to be on a case-by-case basis. If prosecutors find the evidence supports prosecution, it is a court responsibility. Organized public response that often is based on emotions and erroneous or false information is irresponsible and ignorant. By our law, prosecutors decide, based on existing evidence, how or if to prosecute. Those individuals are elected.

If we are to accept our laws, decisions made are to be questioned based on existing statute. Those who object should work to repeal or change the law. Demonstrations indicate ignorance. Do we want enforcement and court decisions influenced by organized protests? Or as some have indicated, taking the law in their own hands?

William Law, Pembroke Pines

Many unanswered questions in Martin case

It would appear just about everyone has now boarded the Trayvon/Zimmerman case bandwagon. Mike Mayo, in only his second sentence, began trashing the "Stand Your Ground" law. It isn't even clear if this law was a factor in the case — and from what we know at this time, which is very little — it most likely isn't a consideration at all.

If we believe the accounts on what occurred, Zimmerman should be arrested and let due process proceed as our laws dictate. Why hasn't Zimmerman been arrested yet? Lots of reasons. Mike mentions some himself — "conflicting witnesses and unclear evidence" are among those cited. There are likely racial issues involved.

And, as with any possible racial issue, up pops Al Sharpton with comforting words. Even the Black Panthers weighed in — no doubt carrying their concealed weapons permits. I didn't hear Al's opinion on the $10,000 bounty they placed on Zimmerman's head. A celebration of racism apparently began with Zimmerman and has proceeded all the way around.

So, what does any of this have to do with Stand Your Ground? Could Zimmerman have felt he was in imminent danger of death or serious injury? After chasing an unarmed teen down, and finding him with a bag of Skittles and a soft drink, it would seemingly be a stretch. If so, Zimmerman stepped way beyond the Stand Your Ground criteria — and should be hung out to dry for his foolish actions. Don't hang the law out.

Everyone agrees this is a tragic case of someone taking on enforcement responsibilities with a deadly weapon at his disposal. It does not, however, provide a reason to attack current gun laws.

There are many cases of shootings that resulted in protecting innocent people, but the media won't be dwelling upon them.

Gary Carlson, Davie

Editor's Note: The debate over Trayvon Martin's death still dominates our readers' attention. As such, we again dedicate our letters section to this topic today